You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

In all libertarian philosophy federal control is frowned upon and small communities of people are left to make their own decisions (San Francisco, while a major city, is still a community, it's not even an entire state or even a county).

Libertarian socialists don't support what anarcho-capitalists call "freedom," they see that kind of freedom as an ironic form of oppression.

There is plenty of reason to oppose the ban on its own merits. There is no need for a law: if people do not believe in circumcision, they should not have it done to themselves or their children. And even if there were to be a circumcision ban, this one is poorly constructed because of the well-founded religious objections that are being raised.

Pretty much says it all. Lawmakers should have better things to do. This is rubbish and just another thing turning us into a nanny-state.

I got my smile from the sunshine,I got my tears from the rain.I learned to dance when I saw a tiger prance,And a peacock taught me to be vain.A little owl in a tree so high,He taught me how to wink my eye.I learned to bill and coo from a turtledove,And a grizzly bear taught me how to hug.But the guy that lived two caves from me,He taught me how to love.

There *is* no SF withou the "super crunchy granola crowd"...well actually that crowd is now more in the east bay but still.

You can't say you'd like SF 'except for'. Usually people not from the area want to take out all the unique things about this area that make it great. >.<

As for this law, I am still formulating my thoughts on this.

I've been aware of the 'anti circumcision' movement and my initial thoughts are it's a little much. I don't disagree with their basic premises. But, over the top and dramatic.

heir main website before was called 'child mutilation .com' or something. It reminds me of a stupid facebook 'conversation' on someone's wall about that male birth control that needs to be injected into a man's testicles. All the biomen immediately jumped in saying 'this is stupid, omg my poor balls, blah blah blah" and "women are so immature that they need to nag about male birth control" and basically fixated on their balls. God forbid you threaten to do anything to or even touch any part of a man's junk or HOT DAMN you are mutilating him and torturing him and also making him gay. I think a lot of it speaks to what happens when someone in a place of relative privilege - biological men who identify as men - has something that is relatively not perfect happen to them and they get fixated on it on the incredible planet shaking injustice of it all instead of looking at it in context etc. etc .etc.

I dunno, considering how invasive and pervasive female genital mutilation (FGM) still is and how relatively slow going that anti-campaign is, it's just hard for me to muster up the requisite level of sympathy or 'outrage' that this 'movement' wants me to have or get behind their banner with fervor.

The *proposed ban* in his case is to make a point, probably will not pass I'm guessing, it's just to get attention for the cause.

“If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

I'm with Ivy in that I'm not a fan of circumcision (I think a lot of people assume it's best without doing any amount of research), but, I'm also not a fan of the government banning any sort of traditional practice. When it's time for me have my next baby at home, I want Big Brother's grubby paws off. ;o)

Surely you can't be serious. It was a city before the Haight Ashbury scene exploded in the 60's wasn't it. I don't think the crunchy granola identity is so integral to the city that you can't understand one without the other.

Usually people not from the area want to take out all the unique things about this area that make it great. >.<

No I just don't care for people looking down their noses at me because I like to wear my leather jacket or how I vote, or drive a certain car, or enjoy shooting guns, or hunting or whatever the hell it may be that I'm into.

My .02 on the whole circumcision thing. The infant doesn't remember the pain anyway, and the results don't appreciably effect one's life outside of ease of cleaning. I think it should be left up to the parents, who are these people to decide whats right for someone elses sons?

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
- Edmund Burke

There *is* no SF withou the "super crunchy granola crowd"...well actually that crowd is now more in the east bay but still.

You can't say you'd like SF 'except for'. Usually people not from the area want to take out all the unique things about this area that make it great. >.<

I like SF, in fact, I like it a lot. If I had the money, I would go on ahead to live there.

Originally Posted by MonkeyGrass

I'm with Ivy in that I'm not a fan of circumcision (I think a lot of people assume it's best without doing any amount of research), but, I'm also not a fan of the government banning any sort of traditional practice. When it's time for me have my next baby at home, I want Big Brother's grubby paws off. ;o)

The thing is, who gets to choose the circumcision, your religion, you/your parents, or the kid when he grows up?

I like SF, in fact, I like it a lot. If I had the money, I would go on ahead to live there.

The thing is, who gets to choose the circumcision, your religion, you/your parents, or the kid when he grows up?

That's true of a lot of things. Parents are given a lot of room to make decisions for their children, even ones that affect them for life. IMO, bodily integrity is sort of a big deal, so I didn't want to make that decision for my son, but if I'm objective about it many of the decisions we've made for him will affect him much more deeply than whether he's circumcised or not.

The thing is, who gets to choose the circumcision, your religion, you/your parents, or the kid when he grows up?

Well, if I had it my way, it would be the kid when he grows up...but unfortunately, I'm not everyone's mama. :P I'm a lot more concerned with the precedent it sets when the wind blows the other way, and I'm forced to give up what I know is the best choice for my child and my family, you know? Sadly, people make poor choices for their kids all the time. Even though I wish it were illegal, my first responsibility (I feel) is to protect my own freedom (and therefore my family) by pushing for personal choice as far as I can.